Ok – here is the summary: the NIMBY’s think the State Controller’s Office validated their proposal even though at least 25 of their 30+ questions were hammered. The NIMBY’s went to the LAFCO meeting to try to see if they could continue on in the process.

The LAFCO board basically said the proposal did not look good. Then Fred Ilfeld accused the LAFCO Board of Corruption (as in colluding against HIM). After that, the usually mild-mannered bill Kirby got animated.

Now at the next LAFCO meeting, it is likely that the future of the project will be sealed – leaving the NIMBY’s to defer to the ENVIROS to stop the development.

Meantime – skiers are getting screwed over. I highlighted a couple spots of the release that speak to the motives of Ilfeld and his ill-fated effort.

PROPOSED TOWN DEEMED ECONOMICALLY INFEASIBLE

The effort by Incorporate Olympic Valley (IOV) was dealt a severe blow at this week’s meeting of the Placer County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). As the process has transpired, multiple financial experts, including the California State Controller’s Office (SCO), have established and continue to unambiguously state and evidence what has been largely and well known for quite some time — the proposed town of Olympic Valley is not financially feasible. In fact, the annual operating losses of this proposed town exceed $1.5 million in the most liberal interpretation of this effort, hence the continued efforts and focus by Save Olympic Valley so to ensure that this risky proposal doesn’t advance any further.

At Wednesday’s meeting, LAFCO Commissioners rejected a staff request for further fiscal analysis and instead, moved to put the issue of terminating the incorporation application on their meeting agenda as soon as the law allows. Prior to taking action, the LAFCO Commissioners heard testimony from their own staff, as well as from Save Olympic Valley’s (SOV) fiscal consultant, Matthew Newman, about the implications of the recent State Controller’s review of the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA) of the proposed town. According to both LAFCO staff and Mr. Newman, the town is not feasible, and nothing in the Controller’s report changes that conclusion.

“IOV’s statements that the town is viable rely on some remarkably unrealistic assumptions,” Newman stated. “IOV proposes to enjoy all the fruits of development in the form of increased revenues, but doesn’t budget for any of the increased costs which new development would bring, such as higher expenditures for law enforcement or the planning department.”

Newman added, “IOV also proposes to take over the regional services currently provided by the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association (NLTRA), and with in doing so would be taking from the entire North Lake Tahoe community, millions of dollars of additional property taxes that are currently used to fund community-wide and county-wide services.”

Andy Wirth, president and CEO of Squaw Valley Ski Holdings, LLC, one of the many members of Save Olympic Valley also reacted to the LAFCO actions, stating “This meeting validated most of what we have known and have been saying for quite some time, and that is that incorporation is not feasible and is a patently dangerous notion not just for the community of Olympic Valley, but also for the entire community of North Lake Tahoe and Placer County. With the great many variables and challenges our community has, introducing yet another civic entity — and in this case, a fiscally unstable civic entity — doesn’t make any sense, whatsoever.”

Wirth said LAFCO commissioners clearly recognized that this process could go on ad infinitum and spoke candidly about how and when to terminate the incorporation application. “Everyone but the small group of individuals associated with IOV now very clearly understand that incorporation has never been, and will never be financially viable,” Wirth said.

“Ironically, IOV set out to slow or stop the enhancement of Squaw Valley by way of the company’s real estate redevelopment project, the very project that would produce the revenues needed for their proposed new town.” Wirth said.

Commissioners engaged in a robust three-hour debate that included a summary of findings from the State Controller’s Office and a discussion on whether to move forward with a quest for fresh data to update the Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis.

In the meeting’s most dramatic moment, IOV alleged that LAFCO staff and its consultants were biased against incorporation, a notion that was vehemently disputed by Commissioner Dr. Bill Kirby.

“LAFCO staff and their consultants are not biased. They have been fair and unbiased. I am insulted by these allegations,” Dr. Kirby stated.

One hope for the proposed town might have been if Placer County was willing to provide financial aid through a process known as “revenue neutrality” negotiations. Unfortunately for IOV, however, the hope of subsidies was dashed by a top county official.

Jennifer Merchant, Placer County’s Deputy CEO for Tahoe, said after having reviewed the State Controller’s Office report and multiple fiscal studies which concluded the town was not feasible, “The County would certainly negotiate revenue neutrality in good faith, but negotiations are not meant to enrich the applicant’s incorporation proposal. In fact, revenue neutrality negotiations might be more detrimental to IOV’s hope for incorporation than the estimated numbers prepared by RSG Consulting in the draft CFA. It’s not the county’s job to find ways to make incorporation viable.”

Keith Fountain, who is neither a member of, nor affiliated directly with SOV, spoke on behalf of the 218 homeowners at the Squaw Valley Lodge who have sought exemption from the incorporation boundaries as put forth by IOV.

“We have studied the CFA ourselves and interpret its conclusions very differently from IOV,” Fountain told the commission. “Contradiction is evident in IOV’s request that restricted TOT funds intended for the North Lake Tahoe Resort Association (NLTRA) now be transferred to the town and considered in the calculation of property tax. All this, despite their on-going claim that they would continue funding NLTRA as Placer County does now. Their argument is simply a financial manipulation intended to inflate the town’s future revenues.”

LAFCO’s next meeting is scheduled for Dec. 9 at 4:00 p.m. in Auburn.

Save Olympic Valley (SOV) is a large group of local residents, homeowners, property owners and business leaders who have sought exclusion from the proposed town due primarily to the substantial financial risk associated with the proposed town. Businesses, properties and individuals seeking exclusion include: Squaw Valley Ski Holdings, Plumpjack/Newsom Properties, The Resort at Squaw Creek, Poulsen Family Properties, Dean and Sandra Hall Properties, Richie Goldman Properties, Dan Morgan Property, Heidi and Terry Deveau, and Ciro Mancuso Properties.

ROSEVILLE, CA – Roseville Police Officers’ Association, Roseville Police Association, International Association of Fire Fighters Local 1592, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245 and International Union of Operating Engineers Local 39, announced the establishment of a newly formed political action committee (PAC) – Roseville First 2016.

Starts a Press Release that was run in a local website. Further analysis shows that the release was sent by a Doug Elmets – who also works for the left-leaning Auburn Indians.

The Roseville City Council had an extremely contentious contract negotiation with the local police and fire departments and it would appear that they are going to attempt to wield influence in the upcoming 2016 Roseville City Council election.

It means that the likely beneficiaries of the labor union largess would be Scott Alvord, David Larson and Richard Rocucci out of the field running.

Now – read the rest of the release carefully:

“As Roseville residents, it is vital to be engaged in public service, through employment or volunteerism. Everyone has a role to play in keeping Roseville safe and we believe the establishment of Roseville First 2016 will help achieve that goal,” said Phil Mancini, President of the Roseville Police Officers’ Association. “Roseville First 2016 will ensure that everyone who lives and works in Roseville is fairly represented.”

Fairly Represented – this means pushing for by-district elections.

“As Roseville employees, public safety personnel and residents, we believe that everyone deserves to have a say in how our city’s affairs are being conducted, now and in the future,” said Jamie Pepin, President of the Roseville Fire Fighters Association. “Roseville First 2016 is our way of inviting the community to come together by supporting candidates who truly desire to put Roseville and its residents – first.”

Roseville First 2016 will support candidates that believe in public safety, fiscal responsibility, and appropriate development and retainment of businesses.

This is an interesting way of saying that they will support those who will give out unsustainable contracts to public safety employees.

“As Roseville grows, so does its representation. It is important to ensure that longstanding members of the community and rising leaders are engaged and attentive to the City’s growing needs,” said Mancini.

What this basically means is that they intend to deceive voters in to believing that unsustainable public safety contracts are actually putting Roseville First.

… unless of course a coalition of three of the most hard-left unions in California in concert with local law enforcement really intend something different. Leave us not forget that the local law enforcement and fire unions hired bay area agitators for the last contract negotiation.

Fred Ilfeld is the man attempting to Incorporate Olympic Valley at the expense of the Placer County Taxpayers. The Controller’s Office and the independent auditor agree – it does not pencil out.

Ilfeld is in to this effort $300k+ that we know of. I do believe that Ilfeld will not stop wasting his money and the time of the Placer County Government – that he has to reimburse the taxpayers for.

The State Controller’s office was dragged in because of a provision in the law where a rich NIMBY like Mr. Ilfeld can spend some pocket change (in this case, $125K) to have the State Controller’s Office review the reviews of the “CFA” – the Comprehensive Financial Analysis. They did – and they decimated Ilfeld.

OLYMPIC VALLEY, Calif. – Oct. 29, 2015 – The California State Controller’s office (SCO) on Wednesday handed down its review of the draft Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA) for the proposed incorporation of Olympic Valley, and confirmed that the initial fiscal study was not riddled with errors as proponents had claimed.

“This is yet another independent entity confirming that the proposed town of Olympic Valley is not financially feasible,” said Andrew Wirth, president and CEO of Squaw Valley Ski Holdings LLC, who also speaks on behalf of Save Olympic Valley (SOV).

SOV is a large group of local residents, homeowners, property owners and business leaders who have sought exclusion from the proposed town due primarily to the substantial financial risk associated with the proposed town. Businesses, properties and individuals seeking exclusion include: Squaw Valley Ski Holdings, Plumpjack/Newsom Properties, The Resort at Squaw Creek, Poulsen Family Properties, Dean and Sandra Hall Properties, Richie Goldman Properties, Dan Morgan Property, Heidi and Terry Deveau, and Ciro Mancuso Properties.

Placer County LAFCO sent the draft CFA to the state’s watchdog agency in August at the request of incorporation proponents, who paid $125,000 for the review. SCO’s response largely confirmed the findings of the initial fiscal study prepared by LAFCO’s independent consultant, RSG Consulting.

“IOV proponents requested and paid for the review because they argued that the CFA was deeply flawed. We now know their belief was incorrect because the State Controller validated most of the work performed by RSG Consulting,” Wirth said. “This review confirms that incorporation remains infeasible.”

Wirth said he fully expects IOV to continue pushing for incorporation using any excuse they can find in the SCO’s report to argue that incorporation is fiscally feasible.

The review by the SCO wasn’t the only analysis performed on the draft CFA. The Blue Sky Consulting Group was retained by the group opposing incorporation, Save Olympic Valley (SOV), to conduct an independent analysis. That study also determined that incorporation is not fiscally viable. Incorporating under these conditions creates huge risk for the people and businesses of Olympic Valley, and would make the entire region suffer.

Matthew Newman, Blue Sky Consulting’s cofounder, stated that the Controller’s Office review confirmed that the CFA was not fundamentally flawed as incorporation proponents had argued. “The SCO review largely upholds the key assumptions of the CFA,” he said.

“On issues from the development projections included in the CFA to the choice of comparable cities to estimates of insurance costs, the SCO review supported the initial findings of the CFA,” said Newman, adding that, “Incorporation remains infeasible.”

Incorporation proponents have routinely stated that they would withdraw their application if the town were not viable. “Let’s see if they make good on those promises,” Newman said.

Beth GainesComments Off on Beth Gaines Fundraiser in El Dorado – Out of Touch, Out of Sight, Out of Mind.

Nov012015

The flyer says to send your checks to Sacramento. Many people know that Gaines just moved from Placer to run for this office in El Dorado County. I am not posting the flyer here for obvious reasons – but a serial carpetbagger is asking people to mail their checks to a third county versus the two they have lived in various places in.

The flyer has an entry price of $125, which is an obscene number for El Dorado County – but the message in the email is the whopper of the ages (whopper emphasized):

Coming up Monday, November 16th I’ll be holding the first event for my El Dorado County Supervisorial campaign! Phil & Laurie Chiappe will be hosting the event at their beautiful home in Serrano. I’m looking forward to bringing new and effective leadership to El Dorado County and I hope I can count on your support!

Beth

–

This lie is consistent with claiming to be a business owner in 2011 (well before Ted blew up his partnership of 30+ years and created a new firm for the purposes of having Beth be a stockholder) – “new and effective” are words you do not apply to the Gaines (who have infested office for over 20 years between them). Perhaps Beth’s opponent can remind people that she is rarely if ever able to debate on the floor of the assembly and once even had to vote against her own amendment because of her incompetence.

–

Perhaps Beth Gaines was not confused about where she lives after all and is hoping the unsuspecting people of El Dorado County are unfamiliar with her versus how familiar with her we are in Placer – which is why she did not challenge Kirk Uhler. (If you live in Roseville – you have been ignored by Beth Gaines as 750,000+ pieces of taxpayer-funded Assembly mail have gone elsewhere since the end of 2012)

–

Perhaps the assumption is that recent onslaught of 150,000 pieces of Assembly mail (paid for at the expense of the same would-be donors) will help people think unrealistic thoughts about Gaines to the point of being motivated to attend?

–

For only $125 you can daydream about having a new and effective supervisor, heck for $1000 YOU, yes YOU can be an event sponsor. #facepalm